ILNews

COA judge among delegation observing Guantanamo Bay hearings

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals Judge Patricia Riley is joining four other representatives from Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law in observing hearings happening at Guantanamo Bay.

Riley, a 1974 graduate of the law school, will be traveling to Guantanamo Bay April 21 to watch hearings in the case of the suicide attacks on the USS Cole in 2000. Jeffrey Mending, a 2013 grad, is currently there to observe hearings in the case of the alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center.

In addition, Hattie Harman, ’10, and Jeff Kerner, ’02, are at Fort Meade in Maryland this week to observe the hearings as part of IU McKinney’s participation in the Military Commissions Observation Project.

IU McKinney’s Program in International Human Rights Law, established by Professor George Edwards, was awarded nongovernmental organization observer status in late February by the Pentagon’s Convening Authority for Guantanamo Bay U.S. Military Commissions. The Pentagon grants observer status to NGOs based in part on a group’s academic or practical work involving international human rights law in the context of armed conflict and criminal trials, the group’s mission to advance human rights through advocacy, the group’s respect for the rule of law, and the group’s ability to reach large audiences around the globe.

Among the 18 other groups with this status are Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Human Rights First, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the American Bar Association.

Edwards is also executive director of PIHRL.

Alumni, faculty and staff of IU McKinney who are interested in observing subsequent hearings may learn more details on the PIHRL MCOP page.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT